Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T22:48:06.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed-Crop Competition: Experimental Designs and Models for Data Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Marcel Rejmánek ,
George R. Robinson  and
Eliska Rejmánková
Marcel Rejmánek
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
George R. Robinson
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Eliska Rejmánková
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Substitutive (replacement) and partial additive experimental designs, with their underlying models, remain the two most popular techniques in weed-crop competition studies, despite considerable criticism of these approaches in the recent literature. We review standard designs for two-species competition experiments and demonstrate the advantages of a reciprocal yield model applied to data from an additive series experiment, using mixtures of Japanese millet and tomato. A traditional replacement series analysis failed to provide a general model of competition among these two species over several total plant densities, while an application of a reciprocal yield (inverse linear) model to the same data was successful. This technique allows evaluation of the influences of both weed on crop and crop on weed, as well as the partitioning of net competition effects into intra- and interspecific components. One Japanese millet plant was competitively equivalent to 3.7 tomato plants, as measured by effects on tomato biomass, while one tomato plant was equivalent to 0.14 Japanese millet plants, as measured by effects on millet biomass. Skewness of per plant biomass distribution is shown to be a result but not an unambiguous measure of competition. Expansion of a reciprocal yield model to mixtures of more than two species is illustrated using three species of duckweed. While some caution is recommended, the reciprocal yield analysis applied to data from appropriately designed experiments is a substantial improvement over more traditional methods.

Keywords

Japanese millet, Echinochloa crus-galli var. frumentacea (Roxb.) W.F. Wight ♯3 ECHCFbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ♯ ECHCGtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum P. Mill. ‘Ace VF55′inflated duckweed, Lemna gibba L. ♯ LEMGIspotted duckweed, Spirodela punctata (Mayer) Thompsongiant duckweed, Spirodela polyrrhiza (L.) Schleid. ♯SPIPOReplacement seriesadditive seriespartial additive designcomplete additive designinverse linear modelreciprocal equationskewnessGini coefficient
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , March 1989 , pp. 276 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Ahrens, W. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1983. Competition, growth rate, and CO2 fixation in triazine-susceptible and -resistant smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 31:438–444.Google Scholar
2. Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1988. Influence of spatial distribution of weeds on crop yield loss. Plant Prot. Quart. 3:81.Google Scholar
3. Bhaskar, A. and Vyas, K. G. 1988. Studies on competition between wheat and Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 28:53–58.Google Scholar
4. Bleasdale, J.K.A. and Nelder, J. A. 1960. Plant population growth and crop yield. Nature 188:342.Google Scholar
5. Braakhekke, W. G. 1980. On Coexistence. Agricultural Research Reports 902. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 164 pp.Google Scholar
6. Burdon, J. J., Groves, R. J., Kaye, P. E., and Speer, S. S. 1984. Competition in mixtures of susceptible and resistant genotypes of Chondrilla juncaea differentially infected with rust. Oecologia 64:199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Causton, D. R. and Venus, J. C. 1981. The Biometry of Plant Growth. Butler and Tanner, Ltd., London. 307 pp.Google Scholar
8. Clatworthy, J. N. and Harper, J. L. 1962. The comparative biology of closely related species living in the same area. V. Inter- and intraspecific interference within cultures of Lemna spp. and Salvinia natans . J. Exp. Bot. 13:307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Connolly, J. 1986. On difficulties with replacement series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Connolly, J. 1987. On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 72:95–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1986. Modelling the population dynamics of an arable weed and its effects upon crop yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Fleming, G. F., Young, F. L., and Ogg, A. G. 1988. Competitive relationships among winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 36:479–486.Google Scholar
15. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London. 892 pp.Google Scholar
16. Higgins, S. S., Bendel, R. B., and Mack, R. N. 1984. Assessing competition among skewed distributions of plant biomass: an application of the jackknife. Biometrics 40:131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Higgins, S. S. and Mack, R. N. 1987. Comparative responses of Achillea millefolium ecotypes to competition and soil type. Oecologia 73:591–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Hill, J. and Shimamoto, Y. 1973. Methods of analyzing competition with special reference to herbage plants. I. Establishment. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 81:77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Holliday, R. 1960. Plant population and crop yield. Nature 186:22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.Google Scholar
21. Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves. Edward Arnold, London. 248 pp.Google Scholar
22. Ikusima, I. and Kira, T. 1958. Effect of light intensity and concentration of culture solution on the frond multiplication of Lemna minor L. (in Japanese). Physiol. Ecol. Jap. 8:58–60.Google Scholar
23. Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacements series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Kropff, M. J., Vossen, J. H., and Spitters, C.J.T. 1984. Competition between a maize crop and a natural population of Echinochlora crus-galli (L.) P. P. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 32:324–327.Google Scholar
25. Law, R. and Watkinson, A. R. 1987. Response-surface analysis of two species competition from an experiment on Phleum arenarium and Vulpia fasciculata . J. Ecol. 75:871–886.Google Scholar
26. Mack, R. N. and Harper, J. L. 1977. Interference in dune annuals: spatial pattern and neighborhood effects. J. Ecol. 65:345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Marshall, A. D. and Jain, S. K. 1969. Interference in pure and mixed population of Avena fatua and Avena barbata . J. Ecol. 57:251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Martin, M.P.L.D. and Field, R. J. 1987. Competition between vegetative plants of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Res. 29:119–124.Google Scholar
29. Motomura, S., Shinozaki, K., and Yoda, K. 1986. Competition between two similar plant varieties, green shrunk perilla and red shrunk perilla, in mixed cultures. Bot. Mag. 99:395–405.Google Scholar
30. Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 1086 pp.Google Scholar
31. Obeid, M., Machin, D., and Harper, J. L. 1967. Influence of density on plant to plant variation in fiber flax Linum ulsitatissimum L. Crop Sci. 7:471–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Ogawa, H. 1961. Experimental studies on the crowding effect in mixed populations of higher plants. Dep. Agric. Thesis, Kyoto Univ. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
33. Radosevitch, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology. Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 265 pp.Google Scholar
34. Rauber, R. 1984. Schätzung des Populations-wachstums der Quecke [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.] mit Hilfe des DE WIT'schen Verdrängungskoeffizienten. Z. PflKrankh. PflSchutz, Sonderh. 10:75–84.Google Scholar
35. Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1951. Weeds of California State of California Printing Div., Sacramento. 547 pp.Google Scholar
36. Schmidt, W. 1981. Über das Konkurrenzverhalten von Solidago canadensis und Urtica dioica . Verh. Ges. f. Ökologie 11:173–188.Google Scholar
37. Shainsky, L. J. and Radosevich, S. R. 1986. Growth and water relations of Pinus ponderosa seedlings in competitive regimes with Arctostaphylos patula seedlings. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:957–966.Google Scholar
38. Shinozaki, K. and Kira, Y. 1956. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. VII. Logistic theory of the C-D effect. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. D7:35–72.Google Scholar
39. Silvertown, J. 1987. Introduction to Plant Population Ecology. 2nd ed. Longman and Harlow, New York. 229 pp.Google Scholar
40. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical Methods. The Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. Page 78.Google Scholar
41. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
42. Suehiro, K. and Ogawa, H. 1980. Competition between two annual herbs, Atriplex gmelini C. A. Mey and Chenopodium album L., in mixed cultures irrigated with seawater of various concentrations. Oecologia 45:167–177.Google Scholar
43. Suehiro, K., Ogawa, H., and Hozumi, K. 1985. Growth analysis of artificially-mixed populations composed of three species. Pages 377–385 in Hara, H., ed. Origin and Evolution of Diversity in Plants and Plant Communities. Academia Scientific Book, Tokyo.Google Scholar
44. Trenbath, B. R. 1978. Models and the interpretation of mixture experiments. Pages 145–162 in Wilson, J. R., ed. Plant Relations in Pastures. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
45. Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–357.Google Scholar
46. Watkinson, A. R. 1981. Interference in pure and mixed populations of Agrostemma githago . J. Appl. Ecol. 18:967–976.Google Scholar
47. Weaver, S. E., Smith, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar
48. Weiner, J. and Solbrig, O. T. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61:334–336.Google Scholar
49. White, J. and Harper, J. L. 1970. Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. J. Ecol. 58:467–485.Google Scholar
50. Wit, C. T. de. 1960. On competition. Agric. Res. Rep. Verl. Landbouk. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
51. Wit, C. T. de and van den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–231.Google Scholar
52. Wit, C. T. de and Ennik, G. C. 1958. Over concurrentie. Jaarboek Inst. Biol. Scheik. Onderz. LandbGewass. Meded. 50:59–73.Google Scholar
53. Wit, C. T. de and Goudriaan, J. 1973. Simulation of Ecological Processes. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 175 pp.Google Scholar
54. Wray, S. M. and Strain, B. R. 1987. Competition in old-field perennials under CO2 enrichment. Ecology 68:1116–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Wright, A. J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge). 96:561–567.Google Scholar
56. Wyszomirski, T. 1986. Growth, competition, and skewness in populations of one-dimensional individuals. Ecol. Pol. 34:615–641.Google Scholar
57. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Page 346.Google Scholar
58. Zimdal, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 195 pp.Google Scholar